Base v. FCA US LLC
- Joseph Spero
- 3:17-cv-01532
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Base v. FCA US LLC, Judge Spero granted in part and denied in part Base’s fee motion, awarding $67,582.50 in fees and $14,796.93 in costs.
The ruling affected the plaintiff, Glen R. Base, and FCA US LLC by determining the attorneys’ fees and costs FCA had to pay after the parties’ settlement.
What happened
Base sued FCA US LLC under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act over problems with a 2012 Dodge Ram 2500. The parties settled, and Base then asked the court to award attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Base requested $124,215 in attorneys’ fees, including a 0.5 enhancement, and $14,796.93 in costs. FCA challenged the requested hourly rates and billing time and argued that some costs should not be awarded.
In Base v. FCA US LLC, Judge Joseph C. Spero granted in part and denied in part the motion. He awarded $67,582.50 in attorneys’ fees without an enhancement and awarded all requested costs, totaling $14,796.93.
The detailed version
- Base v. FCA US LLC · No. 3:17-cv-01532
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 25, 2019
Background
The plaintiff brought claims against FCA US LLC under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act concerning a 2012 Dodge Ram 2500. The parties later settled the case for $135,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff then moved for an award under California Civil Code section 1794(d), requesting $124,215 in attorneys’ fees and $14,796.93 in costs.
The requested fee amount consisted of an $82,810 lodestar—the reasonable hours worked multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—plus a 0.5 enhancement. FCA argued that the requested rates were unreasonable, that counsel billed excessive or duplicative time, and that certain costs were not recoverable.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court found the billed time generally reasonable but excluded 12.5 hours of anticipated work by Larry S. Castruita because the plaintiff did not provide adequate documentation for that time. The court declined to reduce travel time or fees based on the use of two firms and multiple attorneys.
The court adjusted several hourly rates. It reduced Christopher Swanson’s rate from $375 to $350, Kristina Stephenson-Cheang’s rate from $375 to $350, and certain other requested rates. It found that the plaintiff had not established a reasonable rate for Lauren C. Martin and therefore awarded no fees for her work. Based on the adjusted rates and hours, the court calculated a lodestar of $67,582.50.
The court denied the requested 0.5 multiplier. It found that the case was not particularly novel or complex and that the risk of nonpayment was relatively low because the statute guarantees fees to prevailing parties. The court also found that the awarded rates adequately compensated counsel for delay in receiving payment.
Costs
The court held that California law governed the plaintiff’s request for costs under the Song-Beverly Act. It rejected FCA’s argument that the award was limited to costs available under federal law. The court found the requested costs reasonable, including jury fees, expert-witness costs, and travel expenses, and awarded the full requested amount of $14,796.93.
Disposition
Judge Joseph C. Spero granted in part and denied in part the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The court awarded $67,582.50 in attorneys’ fees and $14,796.93 in costs.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.